Forum Help

If you want to ask about changing your username, have login problems, have password problems or a technical issue please email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Posting help:

If you want to ask why a word can't be typed, your signature's been changed, or a post has been deleted see the Forum Rules. If you don't find the answer you can ask forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com though due to volumes we can't guarantee replies.

Hi, I have received a fine of £100 for a 10 minute stay in a carpark in Peterborough run by ParkingEye, after pulling into the carpark I realised I didn't have my purse, I text my husband who confirmed I had left it at home and I left the carpark, to return home, no point going shopping without money! I stated in my appeal that I had not left the car and explained what happened, they refused my appeal as they do not have CCTV only camera's on entry and exit so its my word against theirs that I never got out of the car, I would like to appeal again, is there any point?
Many thanks

UnsuccessfulAssessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), because the vehicle with registration AM** ****, either did “not [purchase] the appropriate parking time and [remained] at the car park for longer than permitted” at Thorpe Road, Peterborough on 7 August 2016.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states she arrived at the car park and discovered she did not have her purse with her. She advises she sent a text message to her husband who confirmed this, so she departed.

Assessor supporting rational for decisionThe terms and conditions state: “Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week” and that “Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator’s case file includes photographs of the signage at the site clearly showing these terms. The operator has also provided photographic evidence of the vehicle arriving at 08:50 and departing at 09:01, for a total stay of 10 minutes and 48 seconds. There is also a system print-off confirming that no payment was made under the vehicle’s registration. When the appellant was invited to provide comments on the operator’s case file, I can see that she raised issues regarding the signage and the amount of the PCN. However, no new evidence or grounds of appeal can be raised at that stage. Instead, this is an opportunity to rebut the operator’s case. She also raised issues regarding the grace period. I am satisfied that the grace period is implied in her initial grounds of appeal to POPLA, therefore this is not an attempt to raise a new ground of appeal. She advises that she has timed herself reading a sign at the site at four minutes and so believes 10 minutes is a reasonable grace period. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 13.1, regarding “Grace periods”, states that operator’s “must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period". Section 13.2 notes that this grace period is for the motorist to decide whether they are going to stay or depart. There is no requirement for an operator to state details regarding grace periods on its signage. The appellant advised she sent a text message to her husband to confirm she had left her purse at home, however no evidence has been provided to POPLA to support this. Furthermore, while I note her comment that it takes four minutes to read the sign, the appellant has not made any suggestion that she attempted to read the signage on the day in question. Therefore, I am satisfied that she breached the terms and conditions. As such, the operator correctly issued the PCN and I must refuse this appeal. For clarity, the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice was updated in 2015 and is the current version in use. In addition, POPLA reviews appeals on a case-by-case basis and cannot consider or comment on the conditions of parking enforcement in regard to council-run car parks.

PoPLA is fast becoming an irrelevance. This decision is, in my opinion, perverse.

Of course adjudicators can take account of the rules applying to council FPNs, and they should. Also, it is not up to the appellant to produce evidence, (the text message), it is up to the claimant to prove that she did not, (the Golden Thread).

This decision needs to be picked apart in front of a judge, and the adjudicator sent for further training.

You do not have to pay! I agree with The Deep that a Judge would be more likely to see this penalty for what it was and if it does go to a small claim, then you can defend it robustly, not rush out a weak version. So much could have been said that wasn't.

10 minutes is in fact within the grace period in the BPA CoP and well within the 11 minutes agreed in a BPA meeting a year ago which was to be the bare minimum. Pretty diabolical of POPLA not to allow it on that basis.

Thank you, I just kept it very simple in the end, probably too naive, just was honest in the fact that I pulled in realised I had forgotten my purse, called home and left once confirmed whereabouts of my purse was. Too simple I expect.

Hi, I received a reply from the landowner who has asked me to send him all the information and he will see what he can do, but after the popla decision, I have sent it but wondered if it was too late now I have lost my appeal?
Also when should I expect the bailiff? And if I refuse to pay and tell them to take me to court will they go away? Thanks x

No bailiff will turn up. At least not until this has gone to court, you've lost, you've refused to pay any court order awarded against you, PE then have to go back to court to seek authority for bailiffs to be employed. So you're miles away from that. And it's totally in your control to avoid bailiffs. The number of times we've seen bailiffs involved in chasing up a private parking charge we can count on one hand. And there's millions of PCNs issued each year. So please get this in perspective.

You might get debt collector letters - but these are powerless and can be ignored (see newbies sticky post #4). Receiving debt collector letters in a PE case is not necessarily bad news as it might be an indication that PE are not going to (or not being authorised by the landowner) to process the charge via the court system. You'll need to see what transpires over the next few weeks.

Come back and let us know how you get on with the landowner.

We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

Thanks for this, you have put my mind at eased, hope the la downer comes back with something positive, if not we are hunckering down and fighting to the end. This sight is great, thank you will definitely keep in touch x

Hi, I received a reply from the landowner who has asked me to send him all the information and he will see what he can do, but after the popla decision, I have sent it but wondered if it was too late now I have lost my appeal?
Also when should I expect the bailiff? And if I refuse to pay and tell them to take me to court will they go away? Thanks x

You are getting mixed up here, POPLA is only an appeal service, appointed by the BPA old boys club, manned effectively by call centre staff and pretty amateurish at that.

No it's not too late for the land owner to cancel, he is the one that employs the ppc scammers not the other way round.

You will not get bailiffs or call round before anything like that happens you would have to be taken to court, loose, then refuse to pay etc.

it's up to you what you decide to do now, either pay up, not recommended on here usually or have your day in court where a judge would decide who is right.

But I would think he would side with you, especially if the landowner agrees to cancel and Parking Eye still chance their arm, though they may not have the right to take you to court in their contract any way.

Hi all, I have just recieved a LBCCC, 6 months after the offence and 5 months after my lost appeal. I am in the process of drafting a response as advised on the newbessie thread but wondered if they was a time limit on this as the origianl 'alledged' offence was 7 months ago.
Thank you

Hi, please can you have a look at my response to the LBCCC I recieved yesterday, I need to get it in the post as the date on the letter was 2/03/2017 - any advice gratefully recieved. Thanks in advance

Removed all sensitive info

Thank you for your letter as detailed above which I received on the 8th March 2017.

As advised by ParkingEye!!!8217;s Legal Department I have read through the Practice Direction, and although your LBCCC states that it is fully compliant with the PD, after reading up on it I find this statement quite misleading and as this is a guide for both claimants and defendants I feel that as an unrepresented person with no legal training I am having to query with ParkingEye what the Practice Direction requires from them as a company. I wonder, does the Solicitor in Charge of the Legal Department approves these letters (LBCCC) BEFORE they are issued? And I respectfully request that the standard template used for your LBCCC is reviewed and request confirmation from you that in future the LBCCC!!!8217;s issued to unknowing motorists are actually fully compliant with the Practice Direction.

Please can you send me a fully compliant Letter Before County Court Claim so that I may deal with my own obligations as set out in the Practice Direction. I would like to receive this fully compliant letter within the next 14 days. As you have referred the PD to me then you should be complying with these obligations in your LBCCC.

Also in your letter it states that it was !!!8216;recently!!!8217; bought to your attention that my appeal to POPLA was unsuccessful, POPLA!!!8217;s decision was made on 17th October 2016 which is nearly 5 months ago.

I feel that my previous correspondence with you has not been fully read and understood and I request that I do not receive a generic response to this letter. Please provide me with the information requested, failure to do so will result in a complaint to the SRA and me forwarding this correspondence to them asking for them to investigate the clear breach of principles set out in the SRA Handbook.

Yours faithfully

Last edited by gill33uk; 09-03-2017 at 2:56 PM.
Reason: put into paragraphs as requested, sorry I was worried about using up all my characters

I also think lecturing PE about the Practice Direction is somewhat of a waste of time because they have in-house solicitors and will not give your points a second thought. Better to talk about the circumstances, the reasons why this should be cancelled.

So, why should it be cancelled? What happened? And have you complained to the landowner/retailer and who was that?

IMO it is far too wordy, repetitious, tighten it up, be more assertive, less respectful. Instead of saying "please can you send me" say I require" Scolding PE will achieve nothing. Remember you are dealing with company with few scruples.

There are plenty of "How to write letters of complaint" websites on the internet, visit a few,

I have received the generic response from ParkingEye as forwarned explaining that they consider their letter to be fully compliant etc. And that I am still liable to the fine. Do I need to respond to this? I am not going to pay until the court rule that I must.

'Next step' is in the 'gift' of PE as to whether they will follow up their LBCCC with court papers. All the evidence over the past 4 years suggests that they will. So be prepared by reading up on the burgeoning number of petty private parking charge claims that are currently clogging up the country's county court system.

Do some searches on this forum and on PePiPoo for 'ParkingEye Court Defence' (or similar search terms). Be prepared for the (almost) inevitable, do not adopt the ostrich position.

We can help with defending this if it gets to court. But your best bet right now is to involve the landowner, because they can kill it dead. Otherwise PE have the balance of six years to strike!

We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

I also think lecturing PE about the Practice Direction is somewhat of a waste of time because they have in-house solicitors and will not give your points a second thought. Better to talk about the circumstances, the reasons why this should be cancelled.

So, why should it be cancelled? What happened? And have you complained to the landowner/retailer and who was that?

How this site works

We think it's important you understand the strengths and limitations of the site. We're a journalistic website and aim to provide the best MoneySaving guides, tips, tools and techniques, but can't guarantee to be perfect, so do note you use the information at your own risk and we can't accept liability if things go wrong.

This info does not constitute financial advice, always do your own research on top to ensure it's right for your specific circumstances and remember we focus on rates not service.

Do note, while we always aim to give you accurate product info at the point of publication, unfortunately price and terms of products and deals can always be changed by the provider afterwards, so double check first.

We don't as a general policy investigate the solvency of companies mentioned (how likely they are to go bust), but there is a risk any company can struggle and it's rarely made public until it's too late (see the Section 75 guide for protection tips).

We often link to other websites, but we can't be responsible for their content.

Always remember anyone can post on the MSE forums, so it can be very different from our opinion.

MoneySavingExpert.com is part of the MoneySupermarket Group, but is entirely editorially independent. Its stance of putting consumers first is protected and enshrined in the legally-binding MSE Editorial Code.